HB 555 changes how Utah family courts handle attorney fees, costs, and witness expenses across several family-law contexts. It requires courts to evaluate the parties' ability to pay when issuing temporary orders, to enter explicit written findings about that ability and about reasons for not awarding fees, and to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing party in enforcement actions.
The bill also tightens rules around modification petitions and parent-time enforcement: it creates clearer fee-shifting for frivolous or bad‑faith custody/parent‑time petitions and expands the list of recoverable costs when a parent-time order is not honored (including childcare, transportation, lost wages, and counseling). These changes affect litigation strategy, evidentiary needs at temporary hearings, and the administrative workload of judges required to make new, specific findings.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends Utah Code sections 81-1-203, 81-4-501, and 81-9-208 to require courts to consider and make written findings about a party's ability to pay attorney fees and costs for temporary orders, to mandate fee awards to prevailing parties in enforcement actions, and to authorize fee assessments and cost recovery in certain modification and parent-time disputes.
Who It Affects
Family court judges and clerks (who must make and record new findings), litigants in divorce, custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, and property division cases, and family law attorneys whose fee exposure or recovery changes depending on outcomes and the court's findings.
Why It Matters
The bill turns some discretionary fee practices into rules that produce more predictable fee-shifting and create documentary requirements judges must meet, which will influence settlement calculus, access to counsel, and the evidence parties must bring to temporary hearings.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 555 rewrites several routine practices into mandatory steps for Utah family courts. For temporary orders in custody, parent‑time, support, alimony, or property matters, the court must now consider each party's ability to pay attorney fees, costs, and witness fees, and it must enter explicit findings on that issue.
The change forces judges to confront financial ability at an early stage rather than leaving such determinations implicit.
The bill makes fee awards more borrower-friendly for prevailing parties in enforcement actions: when a party prevails in enforcing custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, or property division, the court must award reasonable attorney fees and costs. At the same time, the court keeps discretion to award no fees or limited fees if a party is indigent, but if the court chooses not to award fees it must explain that decision in a specific written finding.On modification practice, HB 555 tightens the court's tools to discourage frivolous filings.
If a modification petition or an answer is filed frivolously or to harass, the court shall assess attorney fees against the offending party; and where a petition to modify custody or parent‑time is denied and found not asserted in good faith, the nonprevailing party must pay the prevailing party's reasonable attorney fees. The bill also enumerates costs recoverable when a parent-time order is violated — from childcare to transportation and counseling — and requires awarding reasonable make-up parent-time unless a make-up would harm the child.Other edits are definitional or technical: the amendments update the statutory definition of temporary alimony to reference the revised fee provisions and preserve courts' ability to amend interim orders before a final judgment.
The bill takes effect May 6, 2026, giving courts and practitioners a short window to adjust forms, procedures, and standard findings language.
The Five Things You Need to Know
For temporary orders affecting custody, parent‑time, support, alimony, or property division, the court must consider each party's ability to pay attorney fees, costs, and witness fees and enter specific findings on that question (81-1-203(2)).
When a party prevails in enforcing a custody, parent‑time, child support, alimony, or property division order, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party (81-1-203(3)).
If the court awards no fees or only limited fees because a party is indigent or for other reasons, the court must enter a specific written finding explaining why it did not award full fees (81-1-203(4)(b)).
The court must assess attorney fees as costs against a party that files or answers a modification proceeding frivolously or to harass, and may order the nonprevailing party to pay the prevailing party's reasonable attorney fees if a modification petition was not asserted or defended in good faith (81-9-208(9)–(10)).
For parent-time noncompliance, the prevailing party may recover actual attorney fees and costs including court costs, childcare, transportation, ascertainable lost wages, and court‑ordered or approved counseling, and the court must award reasonable make-up parent‑time unless it's contrary to the child's best interest (81-9-208(11)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Attorney fees, costs, and findings for temporary orders and enforcement
This provision expands and reorganizes the court's fee authority. It explicitly lists the types of actions where the court may order a party to pay another party's attorney fees, costs, and witness fees, including expert witnesses, and it requires courts to consider ability to pay and enter specific findings when issuing temporary orders. It also converts a discretionary award for enforcement actions into a mandatory one: when a party prevails on an enforcement claim, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs. The section preserves judicial discretion to limit or deny fees for indigency but forces a written explanation when that discretion is exercised, improving the record for appeal and review.
Clarifications to family-law definitions (temporary alimony, fault, length of marriage)
This section updates definitions used in the alimony and divorce provisions to reflect the amended fee scheme. Notably, it defines 'temporary alimony' by referencing the court's power to order separate support during the pendency of an action under the amended 81-1-203(5). The definitions for fault, length of marriage, payee, and payor remain largely unchanged but are repositioned to align with the bill’s structural edits.
Modification standards, bad-faith filings, and remedies for parent-time noncompliance
This section preserves the continuing jurisdiction standard but lists specific examples that satisfy a substantial and material change for custody modification — notably residence or access by someone required to register as a sex, kidnap, or child-abuse offender or someone convicted of enumerated child-related offenses. It requires written findings for any modification or termination of joint custody. It also adds firm fee-shifting language: courts must assess fees against parties who file or answer frivolously or to harass, and may require nonprevailing petitioners who lacked good-faith to pay prevailing parties’ attorney fees. For parent-time noncompliance, the statute enumerates recoverable out‑of‑pocket costs and requires ordering reasonable make-up parent‑time unless harmful to the child.
Effective date
The bill takes effect May 6, 2026. Practitioners and courts will need to update interim-order checklists, hearing templates, and fee-findings language to comply with the new findings and fee-shifting requirements by that date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Prevailing parties in enforcement actions — they gain a statutory right to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, improving their ability to make whole after enforcement litigation.
- Custodial parents and children — the explicit list of recoverable costs (childcare, transportation, lost wages, counseling) and mandatory make-up parent‑time protect the practical and financial consequences of missed visits.
- Low-income respondents at temporary hearings — courts must consider ability to pay before imposing fee obligations for temporary orders, which can limit immediate fee exposure.
- Family law attorneys representing prevailing clients — clearer entitlement to fee recovery strengthens collection prospects and may alter fee agreements and litigation intake decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonprevailing parties in enforcement and certain modification claims — increased exposure to paying both their own and the prevailing party’s attorney fees and enumerated out-of-pocket costs.
- Parties who file marginal or tactical modification petitions — the threat of mandatory fee assessments for frivolous or harassing filings raises litigation risk and potential liability for attorney fees.
- Trial courts and clerks — judges must craft and record additional specific findings (ability to pay, reasons for denying fees, findings for modification), increasing workload and the need to develop standardized forms or templates.
- Parties required to prove cost items (e.g., lost wages, transportation) — recovery is allowed, but proof burdens and evidentiary disputes over quantification may increase litigation complexity and cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing access to justice against deterrence of abusive litigation: HB 555 strengthens prevailing parties’ ability to recoup costs and discourages harassing petitions, but by making fee exposure more certain and demanding specific findings at early stages it risks deterring legitimate, underfunded litigants and increasing the evidentiary and administrative burden on courts.
HB 555 moves fee determinations and enforcement remedies from discretionary practice toward mandatory rules and documented findings, but it leaves key measurement questions open. The statute requires courts to 'consider' ability to pay and to enter specific findings, yet it does not prescribe a uniform method for assessing income, assets, or short-term liquidity at emergency or temporary hearings.
Practically, judges will confront evidentiary limits at ex parte or expedited hearings: the mandate to evaluate ability to pay could slow temporary proceedings or produce findings based on scant records.
Mandatory fee awards for prevailing enforcement parties and fee-shifting for frivolous modification petitions create a trade-off between deterring bad-faith litigation and chilling meritorious claims by resource‑constrained litigants. Parties with meritorious but borderline claims may avoid filings for fear of exposure to fees if they lose.
The enumerated recoverable costs for parent-time violations (child care, transport, lost wages, counseling) clarify remedies but also invite disputes over proof, reasonableness, and causation; courts will need to develop standards for what qualifies as 'ascertainable' lost wages or 'court‑approved' counseling. Finally, the new written-finding obligations increase appellate transparency but shift administrative burdens onto courts without accompanying appropriations or model forms in the bill.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.